Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed the care needs of Mr X’s mother, Mrs Y. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out a continuing healthcare assessment and didn’t listen to his concerns about how he and his mother, Mrs Y had been treated. Mr X said this has caused great stress to him and Mrs Y. He wanted the council to apologise and be held accountable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained the Council refused to complete a Continuing Health Care (CHC) Checklist for Mrs Y when requested.
6. In its complaint response, the Council said it had offered to complete the CHC checklist for Mrs Y in May 2025 but Mr X declined to attend. The Council advised Mr X that it did not carry out a CHC assessment for Mrs Y because her needs were not complex in nature and did not suggest she had a primary health need. The Council said it examined a recent assessment of Mrs Y’s needs and decided that she would not meet the requirements at the CHC screening stage. The Council said it had sent a letter explaining its decision not to carry out the CHC checklist with copies of the CHC guidance to Mr X. It also advised Mr X that if would re-assess its decision if Mrs Y’s care needs changed.
7. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council reviewed Mrs Y’s recent assessment and decided that she would not meet the requirements for a CHC checklist. It advised Mr X of its decision and provided information about CHC.
8. Mr X also complained the Council did not listen to his concerns about how he and Mrs Y had been treated.
9. In its complaint response, The Council advised Mr X that it did not regard communications from the Council’s finance team about Mrs Y’s financial assessment to be defamatory. The Council said the emails confirmed the funding decision, based on evidence provided about how Mrs Y’s capital had been spent.
10. Mr X complained the Council provided him with wrong advice and left Mrs Y distressed following a meeting. The Council told Mr X that an email sent to him in July 2024 contained accurate information about the Council’s charging policy. The Council also said it had spoken to staff members involved in the visit to Mrs Y. The staff members did not recall that Mrs Y was stressed or anxious during their visit.
11. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council addressed Mr X’s concerns within its complaint responses and explained why it did not uphold his complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman